The U.S. 2017 military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next 8 nations, combined.

Here is another view:

See the big blue area at the bottom? That’s the U.S. spending. All the other colored areas are the rest of the world. The U.S. spends on defense about 2/3 of what the entire rest of the world spends.

Is this is why our military is “hollowed out”??? Is this is why two of our ships crashed and why navy airmen drew a penis in the sky?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to properly plan for future budget contingencies when there is a lack of certainty as to what budget resources will be provided for defense and other national security requirements in the next year.

This much is true, not only for the military but for all groups that rely on federal money. The annual (daily?) budget revisions make long-term planning impossible.

Many military applications require years of planning and execution. Many efforts have had to be abandoned midstream, resulting in mountains of wasted time and effort left behind.

But none of the above will be cured by transferring dollars from Medicaid to the military.

Now added to all of this uncertainty is a tax bill under consideration by Congress that is estimated to add anywhere from $1.5 to $2 trillion dollars to the national deficitover the next decade.

In the absence of a comprehensive budget that provides essential fiscal discipline on entitlement spending, and enforces a tough “pay-go” requirement that pays for both additional spending and tax relief, the burden of increased future debt will fall – as it always does – on the discretionary accounts of the federal budget, with the largest being defense and national security.

Let’s summarize what Panetta (aka the CRFB) is saying

The debt and deficit are too high

Taxes should be cut

We need to spend more on the military

Now think about that. If the debt and deficit are too high, and taxes should be cut, the only way to reduce the debt and deficit would be to cut spending.

But the CRFB says we need to spend more on the military. So if we cut spending, from where will the additional military money come?

Panetta wants more spending for the military, but there should be “fiscal discipline on entitlement spending.” No “fiscal discipline” for the military, of course

We recognize the importance of providing tax relief to the American people. Our intent is not to criticize tax relief itself, but to raise the concern that tax relief without fiscal discipline will inevitably add to the national debt.

That increase in the debt will, in the absence of a comprehensive budget that addresses both entitlements and revenues, force even deeper reductions in our national security capabilities.

Panetta wants to “address entitlements and revenues.” But tax cuts reduce revenues, so again, from where will the money come? And again, from “Entitlements.”

And what are “Entitlements”? Depending on various definitions, they may or may not include your Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, aids to education, anti-poverty, housing aids, aids to education, and all the other things the government of “the greatest nation on earth” should do for its citizens.

In short, the CRFB, America’s leading debt Henny Pennys,tell you our sky is falling, and that the only way to save us is to spend more on the military and less on Americans.

And to top it all off, Panetta finishes with phony patriotism. While you read the next two paragraphs, be sure to play the Star Spangled Banner on your iPad:

We are proud of the men and women in uniform who bravely serve our nation and recognize the sacrifices that so many others have made for their country.

Our goal is to make sure that those who volunteer to serve in our military will never have to experience the consequences of a “hollowed out” national defense system.

No, Leon, your goal is to cut spending for the poor and middle-income people and to give the money to the voracious, never-satisfied (but supposedly “hollowed out”) military, the largest military the world has ever known — and we aren’t even in a war.

Imagine Panetta’s demands if the U.S. were in an actual shooting war.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask Congress to adopt a tax bill that will be paid forand will not further contribute to the uncertainty of future budgets.

Sincerely,

Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary Ash Carter, Secretary Chuck Hagel

But it isn’t only the CRFB that wants to spend more on the military and less on social programs. It’s the party-of-the-rich, the GOP:

The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending.

The House budget would bump up defense spending by around $929 billion over the next decade and save on non-defense discretionary spending by $1.3 trillion.

It slashes safety net programs. The House budget would slash Medicaid — it says that via Medicaid cuts plus changes to Obamacare, it would save $1.5 trillion.

And the House budget would also impose work requirements on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (known as welfare) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as food stamps).

It also cuts Medicare. The House bill would cut Medicare by $487 billion over 10 years, while the president’s budget, as proposed, barely touched it.

In the face of inflation, all social programs need to be increased, not cut. But then, those programs “only” benefit the middle and the poor, so they are not considered necessary by the GOP.

What does the GOP say is necessary? Tax cuts for the rich. They are the ones who will benefit from the GOP’s budgets.

If you doubt it, ask yourself why our billionaire President (who refuses to disclose his tax returns) and the billionaires he has appointed to his cabinet, and all the billionaires supporting him, so ardently vote Republican and favor the GOP pro-rich budgets.

In summary:

The GOP rightly claims that federal tax cuts will stimulate economic growth. The reason: Tax cuts leave more dollars in the private sector. The GOP also rightly claims that federal spending increases will stimulate economic growth. Spending increases also put more dollars into the private sector.

The commonality is dollars in the private sector.

Gross Domestic Product growth parallels the growth of dollars in the private sector.

Federal deficit spending adds dollars to the private sector. But the GOP claims that tax plans should be “revenue neutral,” meaning the GOP strives for plans that will add no dollars to the private sector.

Thus, we see the impossibility of tax reductions that “pay for themselves” without increasing the federal deficit and debt.

If a tax rate reduction results in less total tax being collected, it will grow the economy, while generating higher federal deficits and debt.

If a tax rate reduction results in more total tax being collected, it cannot add dollars to the private sector, and so cannot grow the economy.

The self-imposed limitations on the federal deficit and debt are what limit economic growth.

There is no evidence that increased federal deficits and federal debt have any adverse effect on economic growth. It mathematically is impossible to grow the economy while the money supply declines.

Reductions in federal deficits and debt lead to recessions, which are cured by increases in federal deficits and debt.

[Vertical gray bars are recessions.]

We can, and should, have tax cuts for the lower- and middle-income groups. We can, and should, increase spending for entitlements, to make life better for the 99% of Americans who will depend on entitlements — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

We even can spend more on the military, though the priority, when we aren’t in a real war, is questionable.

The federal government is not like you and me. Its finances are not like ours. Unlike you and me, the federal government never can run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar. The government creates dollars, ad hoc, by spending dollars.

The government is what is known as “Monetarily Sovereign.” It has the ability to spend an unlimited number of dollars, which it creates by pressing computer keys.

The only limit to federal spending is an inflation that cannot be controlled by raising interest rates. The U.S. never has had such an inflation.

The GOP’s tax plans are hideous giveaways to the rich. Panetta’s comments about the budgets are designed to impoverish the 99% under the guise of making us safer.

And it’s all based on the private sector’s ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

Like this:

Related

12 Responses to I want more $ for the military; less $ for you: Leon Panetta

Just out of curiosity, how much is spent on the military that is off budget?
After all the 2008-10 fed bailout, aka QE, was not in any budget. That spending, $29 TRILLION is 30% of the entire worlds spending. Seeing how sacrosanct is the military I can’t see them missing out on any similar federal largesse. It seems to me the allocated budget is just running expenses.

you have to SPEND to grow an economy. So, yes, under MMT inflation will restart, a very desirable outcome. Would you buy a house on a loan which when paid off did not match the price of the house at that time?It’s inflation that allows you to grow your asset’s value. As RMM says you cannot cut your way to prosperity. Tell it to the idiots in Congress!

That is pure BS and it’s a lie. My point above is that you can mathematically and logically grow an economy even without money. Money has zero to do with growing the economy. Labor/work grows the economy.

Why are you commenting on this blog? Your utter cluelessness is mind boggling. People are not going to work for no money. Can you afford to work for no money? Government spending gets work started, paid for and it boosts the economy. Governments get work done which is not profit motivated. That can be left to the private sector.

I’m not sure the problem is “cluelessness,” which implies unknowing. I think it’s fact-averse, meaning he/she actively opposes all facts. His comments are valuable in demonstrating the kind of thinking that got Donald Trump elected and still supported by 1/3 the people.

1. Corrupted the legal system.
2. Appointed cronies
3. Appointed generals.
4. Appointed family members
5. Criticized the media as enemies
6. Admired other despots.
7. Violated ethics norms
8. Egocentric — claimed he was best at everything
9. Demanded absolute loyalty
10. Thin-skinned
11. Fostered a cult of personality
12. Punished political opponents
13, Never accepted blame; always took credit, even if unwarranted
14. Created scapegoats and punished them
15. Claimed the country was being attacked, and he was defending it.